The applicant seeks leave to execute the judgment of this court per TAGU J delivered on 13 January 2021 under HC 1897/16 (judgment No. HH 26/21). The relief sought is aptly set out in the draft order as follows:
“WHEREUPON after reading documents filed of record and hearing counsel it is ordered that:
1. That the Applicant be and is hereby granted leave to execute judgment No. HH 26/21 granted by this court under case HC 1897/16 on 13th January 2021.
2. That the Applicant furnish security to the satisfaction of the Registrar.
3. That in the event of an... More
At the commencement of this trial the parties agreed that this matter be dealt with as a special case in terms of Order 29, Rule 199 of the High Court Rules, 1971. The facts in relation to the special case are contained in the following document signed by both parties on the 25th November 2020. More
The respondent was the Managing Director of the appellant company until 21 August 2014 when he was suspended from duty. The issue before the court relates to a pay increase that was awarded but not paid to respondent before his suspension. More
At the hearing of this appeal I heard submissions on the points in limine and reserved my ruling. This is it.
The appellant filed its appeal on 28 August 2015 against an arbitral award. The 2nd respondent who was immediately thereafter served with the notice of appeal, lodged its notice of response on 14 September 2015. The first respondent only filed its notice of response on 23 September 2015. Both notices of response were served on the appellant soon after filing with the Labour Court. More
This is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against a decision of this court dismissing the appeal by the applicant. The application is made in terms of section 92 F (2) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] (the Act) as read with Rule 36 of the Labour Court Rules (the rules) Statutory Instrument 59/2006. More
This is an appeal against the decision of the Designated Agent NEC Motor Industry where he ordered the reinstatement of the respondent employee in a labour dispute pitting him and the appellant employer. More
The plaintiff instituted summons against the defendant for;
a) payment of $101 781-60 being the value of diesel stolen and misappropriated by the
defendant during his employment with the defendant More
The respondents are former employees of the applicant. They were retrenched in 2012. They were paid their pensions in terms of s11 of the Public Service (Pension) Regulations, Statutory Instrument 21A of 2001 (the Regulations). More
This exception has been filed by the third defendant in a matter in which it purports to be sued by the plaintiff (CMED) as one of the material players in the non-delivery of 3 million litres of diesel that was due to it from the first defendant, FIRST OIL. The third defendants argues that the plaintiff’s summons do not disclose a cause of action in terms of order 2 Rule 11 (C) which requires a true and concise statement of the nature, extent and grounds of the cause of action and of the relief and remedies sought in the action.... More
On 23 June 2008 the plaintiff and the defendant entered into an insurance agreement. The insurance policy issued to the plaintiff (the insured) was to cover damage to the “whole or part of the property described in the schedule, owned by the insured or for which they are responsible, including alterations by the insured as tenants to the buildings and structures”. Specifically the insurance was against damage from “ fire, lightning or thunderbolt, explosion and such additional perils as are stated in the schedule.” More
At the hearing of this matter both parties were in agreement that the factual issues were not contentious and they submitted a statement of the undisputed facts to the court and mutually agreed on the issues that the court had to determine after hearing argument. More
The appeal is against the decision of the general Engineering Committee made in terms of Section 7 (3) of the Collective bargaining Agreement; Engineering and Iron and Steel Industry Statutory Instrument 301 of 1996. The appeal is opposed.
The factual back ground which is largely common cause is as follows:
The Respondent was employed by the Appellant for nineteen years as a Fitter skilled worker Class 2. The Respondent for the greater part of his service was chronically ill suffering from a kidney ailment. In January, 2009 he was granted indefinite sick leave by his medical practitioner in order to... More
This is an appeal against a determination made by the Designated Agent for the Food and Allied Industries on the 20th of May, 2022. The appeal is opposed. More
This is an application for rescission of default judgment granted on 10 May 2012 in Case No HC 3958/12.
The background to the matter is that the applicant borrowed US$40 000 from the respondent at an interest of 20% per annum in February 2011 and payable by 28 February 2012. The applicant failed to liquidate the debt when it became due resulting in the respondent issuing summons on 21 April 2012 for the US$80 000. More
